Case law

United States Steel Corporation v. Bijur Lubricating Corporation

286 F.2d 617 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1961

This is an appeal from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board *618 of the United States Patent Office dismissing an opposition by registrant, appellant here, to an application of applicant, appellee here, for … General Shoe Corp. v. Lerner Bros. Mfg. Co., Inc., 254 F.2d 154 , 45 CCPA 872. Accordingly, we are of the opinion the board erred in dismissing the opposition. Reversed.

In re Fischer

62 F.2d 96 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1932

Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248, 265 ; Hicks v. Kelsey, 18 Wall. 670 ; Florsheim v. Schilling, 137 U. S. 64, 76 ; Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 486 ; In re Lobdell, 56 App. D. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Katzenstein & Keene v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 143 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1926

'The Board of General Appraisers therefore overruled the protest and the importer appealed. On the hearing before the board, Harry A. … See United States v. Wakem & McLaughlin (Inc.), 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 37 , T. D. 40867.

Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 203 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1925

Hatfield, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers in reappraisement 13174-A. … Kahlen v. United States, 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 206 T. D. 31947.

In re Ward

150 F.2d 436 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1945

An epitomized statement of this accepted doctrine appears in the decision of Judge Learned Hand in Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Louis H. Segall v. Marion W. Sims, Ezra C. Hill and Aaron M. Krakower

276 F.2d 661 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 3, 1960

In re Hollman, 213 F.2d 323 , 41 CCPA 937; Crome v. Morrogh, 239 F.2d 390 , 44 CCPA 704. … Long v. Young, 159 F.2d 766 , 34 CCPA 871; In re Hollman, supra. Sims et al. disclose, without limitation, a source of unidirectional capacitor charging current.

Application of Shenango Ceramics, Inc

362 F.2d 287 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 23, 1966

Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U.S. 169, 185 , 16 S.Ct. 1002 , 41 L.Ed. 118 (1896). … So far as is pertinent to registrability for federal trademark protection, we believe Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 , 84 S.Ct. 784 , 11 L.Ed.2d 661 and Compco Corp. v.

In re Yates

663 F.2d 1054 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 5, 1981

This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Appeals (“board”), sustaining the examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-33 1 as obvious from Okada et al. … percent of one or more inert gases selected from the group consisting of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen and hydrogen with a catalyst of the general formula: RaCObFecNidQeMfYgZhOx Where R = Bi or Sb Q =Mo, W, V

United States v. Saunders

6 Ct. Cust. 86 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1915

See also United States v. Morris European & American Express Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 146 ; T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed

In the Matter of the Application of Thomas A. Krivanek and Roy T. Krivanek

225 F.2d 483 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 21, 1955

It is respectfully submitted that there is no more patentable cooperation between the magnet and the snare loop portions of the present device than existed between the combined pencil and eraser of Reckendorfer v. … In their brief and oral arguments before us, appellants earnestly renew the contentions advanced below, and specifically challenge the applicability of Reckendorfer v.

Bache & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 314 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 9, 1922

In United States v. Bache & Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 445 ; T. … In United States v. Schrenk & Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 451 ; T.

Gleason v. Dosch

39 F.2d 687 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1930

A. 718; Smith v. Nichols, 21 Wall. 112, 119 ; O’Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 61, 123 . … The decision, of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Wright

117 F.2d 753 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1941

We also believe that the decision in the Martin v. … The board approved this holding and said: * * * We also believe that the decision in the Martin v. Chapman and Littleford case [21 C. C. P. A.

Heard v. Burton

333 F.2d 239 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 25, 1964

since we are not convinced Heard had such a "definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention" (see Townsend v. … Nor do we interpret the board's opinion as so requiring.

Myers v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 350 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1924

In the case of Simon, Buhler & Baumann v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 273 ; T. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re Heritage

182 F.2d 639 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1950

In that connection the examiner cited the case of Therm-O-Proof Insulation Co. v. Slayter & Co., 80 F. (2d) 557 (C. C. A. 7th 1935). … The Hamilton Laboratories, Inc. v. Massengill, 111 F. (2d) 584 (C. C. A. 6th 1940), 45 USPQ 594 , certiorari denied 311 U. S. 688 , 47 USPQ 531 .

Hopkins v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 29 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1926

The two protests were thereupon forwarded to the Board of General Appraisers and heard together. … As to the protest first filed, the judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed on the authority of Waddell v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 424 , T.

Brinker v. Kray

460 F.2d 1073 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1972

Appellees not only agree with the board but also contend that there are other deficiencies which the board merely referred to as being “noted by Kray in the brief.” … Even applying the rule of reason enunciated in Berry v.

In re Jannell

120 F.2d 1012 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1941

It will be seen that the board said that it did not regard the expression “apparatus as a whole” as “necessarily including any more than is included in the claims.” … limitation expressed in the preamble need not be considered even though the application disclosure would support a patentable claim if it had been made, and cites a number of cases including the famous “wax nose” case —White v.

In re Herchenrider

117 F.2d 261 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 3, 1941

Co. v. Halifax Cotton Mills, Inc., 257 Fed. 321 . … Accordingly we hold, for the reasons hereinbefore stated, that all of the claims before us are patentable over the references cited, and the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed.